[kjmclark]

The U.S. economy is not a closed system the last time I checked. Energy inefficiency merely got offshored in the form of a declining domestic manufacturing base during that period.

It's really amazing how many people sweep that fact under the rug. There are some extremely important consequences of that, beyond its implications for evaluating US energy use since the 70s. We claim that we have reduced the energy intensity of the US economy, but we ignore the embedded energy in the goods we buy from abroad; their greenhouse gas emissions are partially our responsibility. We should expect import prices for those goods to increase, after some lag, because of the increased cost of commodities used to make those goods; this will eventually increase our inflation rate.

It reminds me of the so-called accounting done by ICLEI cities to show that they are dealing with climate change. They reduce their city government GHG emissions and pat themselves on the back for their wonderful work. What about the emissions from their residents? What about the emissions from the non-resident commuters that drive into their cities? In the end, the bogus accounting serves no valuable purpose, the emissions are always someone else's problem.

In this case, energy use, and particularly petroleum use, is going to be someone else's fault until it no longer matters whose fault it was. Eventually the blame game will have to stop and we'll have to make other arrangements no matter who we want to point the finger at.

[americandream]

The energy end-use evidence shows that Jevons Paradox is grossly wrong like many other forecasting methods of this type.

From: "What can history teach us about forecasts of energy use?", Berkeley Lab

I am simply flabbergasted at your limited perspective...lost for words. Consider the earth's resource geology, all 6 billion of the earths inhabitants ramping up to US and Western consumption levels, add an efficiency function into that equation, then reconsider Jevon.

His equation merely contemplates the function of depletion in the context of growth and limitation, notwithstanding efficiences...not US resourcing at the start of the new Millineum.

[TWilliam]

The energy end-use evidence shows that Jevons Paradox is grossly wrong like many other forecasting methods of this type.

Pah! Hardly...

Aside from the issues pointed out already, the 'evidence' you cite does nothing to disprove Jevons' assertion. The only thing that graph illustrates is that the rate of increase in consumption was slowed compared to the various projections; the overall level of consumption still increased however, just as Jevons indicated it would.

[Aaron]

Does Jevon's paradox apply once Government rationing is imposed?

No

Jevon only applies to free markets.

[dub_scratch]

I am simply flabbergasted at your limited perspective...lost for words. Consider the earth's resource geology, all 6 billion of the earths inhabitants ramping up to US and Western consumption levels, add an efficiency function into that equation, then reconsider Jevon.

...of course. If the auto industry were to create a 200 MPG car for the mass market, it would just allow for the other 5 billion car-less people in the world to buy them. Plus they build all highways and parking lots to go with all these "super efficient" cars. A once foot or bike bound population would then start depending on the flow of motor fuel for daily life where now they do not.

If the auto industry cannot rapidly supply the world with high-MPG cars then countries like China would be inclined to cancel their auto mobilization project and revert back to bicycles.

I don't understand why this condition is so hard for people to accept.

[Gridlock]

No, Jevon only applies to free markets.

So the way conservation would really have an effect is if international co-operation can be garnered with something like Campbell's Rimini protocol ?

[tsakach]

I can reference specific passages from Jevon & other period economists who incorporate economic limits to growth in their calculations.

Thanks, more references are needed to data and/or studies that support arguments either for or against Jevons Paradox. Many that argue in favor of Jevons Paradox seem to assume that it is a universal truth. But not much evidence is provided to support these arguments.

Jevons Paradox is very similar or in many ways identical to the Rebound Effect, which is a well studied but controversial topic.

A Rebound Effect (also called a Takeback Effect or Offsetting Behavior) refers to increased consumption that results from actions that increase efficiency and reduce consumer costs (Musters, 1995; Alexander, 1997; Herring, 1998). For example, a home insulation program that reduces heat losses by 50% does not usually result in a full 50% reduction in energy consumption, because residents of insulated homes find that they can afford to keep their homes warmer. As a result, they reinvest a portion of potential energy savings on comfort. The difference between the 50% potential energy savings and the actual savings is the Rebound Effect.

(Greene, Kahn and Gibson, 1999) Because a more fuel-efficient vehicle costs less per mile to drive, there is a Rebound Effect, which is typically 20-30%. This reflects the elasticity of vehicle travel with respect to fuel price (Transportation Elasticities). As a result, a 10% increase in fuel efficiency actually provides a 7-8% net reduction in fuel consumption and a 2-3% increase in vehicle mileage.
David L. Greene, James Kahn and Robert Gibson, “Fuel Economy Rebound Effect for U.S. Household Vehicles,” Energy Journal, Volume 20, Issue 3 (www.iaee.org/abstract/vol203.asp), July 1999, pp. 1-31.

Rebound Effects - Implications for Transport Planning

In this study, the Rebound Effect from a 10% gain in efficiency occurs as an increase in annual vehicle mileage. However, it was found that even with the increased annual mileage, a 7-8% net reduction in consumption still occurred. An argument might be made that the 7-8% reduction in consumption moved somewhere else in the economy, or that some sort of a time-delay effect exists where consumption is increased to eventully erase the gain in efficiency. It would be nice to see actual data or research that supports arguments like this.

However it is a highly complex subject and difficult to measure:

Both the conception and measurement of the rebound effect are subject to debate, with much hinging on the system boundaries that are chosen, the time frame over which the effects are measured and the methodologies that are used.

Evidence for the direct rebound effect derives from a variety of econometric studies, conducted primarily in the US. These have a strong bias towards household heating and passenger transport, and their conclusions are not necessarily applicable to other contexts and services.

This evidence is of varying quality and requires careful evaluation against established principles of statistical methodology. Evidence for indirect and economy-wide rebound effects derives from a mix of sources, including historical studies of substitution between energy and capital, decomposition of historical trends in energy consumption, and economic modelling.

Evaluating the quality and implications of this evidence is challenging and requires careful attention to definitions and assumptions. Evidence for economic models needs to be treated with particular caution.

The Evidence for a Rebound Effect from Improved Energy Efficiency

This suggests that it is very difficult to measure the implications of the Rebound Effect (or Jevons Paradox). Jevons Paradox seems to exist as an economic theory without conclusive proof of it's validity.

"Jevons was fabulously wrong in his calculations. His main mistake was to underestimate the importance of coal substitutes such as petroleum and hydroelectric power. Commenting on Jevons’ argument in 1936, Keynes said it was over-strained and exaggerated." (Essays in Biography, 1951, 259).

[MonteQuest]

Many that argue in favor of Jevons Paradox seem to assume that it is a universal truth. But not much evidence is provided to support these arguments.

Yeah, what's 150 years of empirical data worth?

[tsakach]

Many that argue in favor of Jevons Paradox seem to assume that it is a universal truth. But not much evidence is provided to support these arguments.

Yeah, what's 150 years of empirical data worth?

"Under certain circumstances, the rebound effect could actually turn an increase in efficiency into an increase in demand. However this has only happened in very special cases such as in some developing countries or in new markets such as the coal market in the mid 1800s or the electricity market in the early 1900s. For mature markets, it is generally accepted that although real the rebound effect is limited.(Lee Schipper, On the rebound: the interaction of energy efficiency, energy use and economic activity. An introduction. Energy Policy 28 (2000): 351-353.)"

Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect: Does Increasing Efficiency Decrease Demand?

This suggests that after 150 years of empirical data, only a few special cases exist where an increase in efficiency actually resulted in an increase in demand. It most cases, demand is reduced by increased efficiency, but not to the extent expected due to the Rebound Effect.

[MonteQuest]

This suggests that within 150 years of empirical data, only a few special cases exist where an increase in efficiency actually resulted in an increase in demand.

Hardly.

“To the extent you make any useful commodity more affordable, you encourage it's consumption by that same margin.“

As energy historian Vaclav Smil points out, “whatever the future gains may be, the historical evidence is clear: higher energy efficiency of energy conversions leads eventually to higher, rather than lower, energy use.”

With more efficient lighting; we installed more of them. With better gas mileage; we built SUV’s. With better heating and cooling, we built larger homes. Seems many of these "special cases" were quite recent....

Effective conservation will entail restricted per capita use (rationing).

Do you seriously maintain that putting something on sale reduces consumption?

Guess most retail business owners haven't got a clue...

[tsakach]

As energy historian Vaclav Smil points out, “whatever the future gains may be, the historical evidence is clear: higher energy efficiency of energy conversions leads eventually to higher, rather than lower, energy use.”

"There is no need to elaborate how wrong Jevons was."

From: Peak Oil:A Catastrophist Cult and Complex Realities By Vaclav Smil

Please come up with sources that support your arguments.

[MonteQuest]

What do these two graphs tell you?






That's just part of the "empirical data."

[MonteQuest]

And it wasn't population growth, either.

[MonteQuest]

Please come up with sources that support your arguments.

Hung by your own petard:

Your quote in context:

The modern tradition of concerns about an impending
decline of resource extraction began in 1865 with Victorian
economist William Stanley Jevons (1835–1882), who concluded
that falling coal output must spell the end of Britain’s
national greatness as it is “of course…useless to think of substituting any other kind of fuel for coal.” Substitute oil for
coal in the last sentence and you get the erroneous foundations
of the doomsday sentiment shared by the peak-oil catastrophists.
There is no need to elaborate how wrong Jevons was.

Yes, he didn't forsee the advent of oil and NG, but this has nothing to do with Jevon's Paradox.

So, please come up with sources that support your arguments.

[dub_scratch]

What do these two graphs tell you?

What they tell me is that increased auto fuel economy only supported the expansion of sprawl and car dependancy. And the benifits of increased MPG were then *consumed*.

I would like our friend tsakach to explain why the outcome of a greatly increased fleet MPG would be different this time.

[tsakach]

What does these two graphs tell you?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/ ... gure10.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/ ... jevon1.jpg
That's just part of the "empirical data."

Can you reference the original data sources used to produce these graphs?

In the article cited earlier "Peak Oil: A Catastrophist Cult and Complex Realities", Vaclav Smil goes on to say:

"Steeply rising oil prices would not lead to unchecked bidding for the remaining oil but would accelerate a shift to other energy sources. This lesson was learned painfully by OPEC after oil prices rose to nearly $40/barrel in 1981. It led Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the Saudi oil minister from 1962 to 1986, to conclude that high prices will only hasten the day when the organization “will be left staring at untouched fuel reserves because new efficient techniques will have cut deep into demand for transport fuels and much of Middle Eastern oil will stay in the ground forever."
...
"A more aggressive adoption of hybrids could bring the rate to 50 mpg, more than halving the current U.S. need for automotive fuel and sending oil prices into a tailspin."

By suggesting large scale adoption of hybrids would "send oil prices into a tailspin", Smil is clearly refuting Jevons Paradox.

Substitution with other energy sources is cited by Keynes and others as the reason why Jevons Paradox does not apply to the real world.

[MonteQuest]

Can you reference the original data sources used to produce these graphs?

The first one came from the EIA. The second is obviously an extrapolation of the first.

Substitution with other energy sources is cited by Keynes and others as the reason why Jevons Paradox does not apply to the real world.

And what does substitution have to do with Jevon's Paradox? Jevon's Paradox has to do with efficiency gains.

Jevon's Paradox just did apply to the real world. I showed you the numbers and we have all seen the evidence.

What energy source can substitute for oil?

What will be the new oil?

The only new energy source in the last 100 years has been nuclear and it only is only 6% of the world's primary energy.

[tsakach]

Can you reference the original data sources used to produce these graphs?

The first one came from the EIA. The second is obviously an extrapolation of the first.

Did the EIA data come from the following: 2001 National Household Travel Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and augmented by EIA

The first graph seems to make sense, especially if you look at the EIA data: U.S. Average Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Vehicle Fuel Economy Category, 2001.

Code: Select all

Vehicle fuel economy category (mpg)   <10.9    11-12.9 13-15.9 16-18.9  19-21.9  22-24.9  25-25.9  >30
Average miles traveled (thousands)     2.4     3.1     8.5     11.5     12.4     14.8     15.7     17.0


If you calculate the total gallons consumed per year by vehicle category, you have:

Code: Select all

Vehicle fuel economy category (mpg)  <10.9    11-12.9 13-15.9 16-18.9  19-21.9  22-24.9  25-25.9  >30
Average miles traveled (thousands)     2.4     3.1     8.5     11.5     12.4     14.8     15.7     17.0
Average gallons consumed               220     240     534     608      566      594      606      566


This seems to be fairly consistent with the data you provided in the first graph. In fact, I find the data in these tables to be more compelling evidence of the rebound effect. Here you can see a clear relation between fuel efficiency and miles traveled. Since the data occurs within the same year, variables such as population growth or fuel prices are factored out.

The average gallons consumed is derived from fuel efficiency and total miles traveled. If the gallons consumed also showed a linear increase that tracked fuel efficiency like the miles traveled data, it would certainly seem to suggest that something like Jevons Paradox is occuring. The very low efficiency vehicles (<13 mpg) travel fewer miles, while the remaining vehicle efficiency categories do not reflect an obvious increase or decrease in fuel consumption based on efficiency. It is certainly possible that a 7-8% overall decrease in fuel consumption may occur, even with increased annual mileage as stated in Greene, Kahn and Gibson, 1999. But there is no indication here that an increase in efficiency causes an increase in consumption, only an increase in miles traveled is apparent.

The second graph appears to draw a connection between an increase in efficiency and an increase in gasoline consumption. But with so many other variables involved over the time period, such as population growth or gasoline prices, it is impossible to draw a connection with the data provided.

The third graph indicates that miles traveled increased by a factor of 5x over population growth. But again, this could be caused by other time-related factors such as gasoline prices, people moving further away from work, etc.

The data provided in the first graph shows evidence of the rebound effect on miles traveled, but the other graphs do not provide evidence that Jevons Paradox is the cause of increased consumption. As mentioned previously, there are many variables involved making it very difficult to isolate the causes of increased or decreased consumption.

While the rebound effect is acknowledged as a real phenomenon and is well studied, the extent of the rebound is a subject of debate. Jevons Paradox on the other hand seems to be dissmissed as something that rarely occurs and only under special circumstances. I would argue that Jevons Paradox is a special case of the rebound effect, where the extent of the rebound is such that the resulting consumption is greater than the gain in efficiency, resulting in an overall increase in demand. But in most cases, gains in efficiency result in an overall reduction of demand, but the reduction in demand is less than the gain in efficiency due to the rebound.

[MonteQuest]

Don't think so.

The data is not in question. You can easily corroborate it or just look at the cars we drive and the houses we live in for a visual certitude.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

The only problem with Jevon's paradox is that it ignores the idea that excess consumption is encouraged by those who control the resource in order to maximise profit. Use of a resource depends on context, and restraints within that context. To say that increased efficiency results in greater use ignores the fact that increased efficiency is usually utilized to continue use... We have inefficient cars and houses because the groups that provide these make more profit as we consume more. If the costs of these items rise to the point where alternatives become attractive, the costs can simply be reduced by making more efficiency versions to insure continued use.